The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
John P. Holdren, Ecoscience 1977 MSNBC In Cover-Up Of Manifestly Provable Population Control Plan
In an article reported by the Telegraph, Kurzweil says that our technological and genetic know-how is marching at such a furious pace that in 20 years’ time we should be holding in our sweaty, excitable hands the nanotechnological secrets of our existence.
This idea is dangerous, unethical and its proponents are not to be trusted. Emphasis mine.
HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A Charleston woman agreed in Kanawha Circuit Court Monday to a judge’s suggestion that she have her fallopian tubes tied as part of her probation.
Jessica Michelle Butterworth, 21, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana on March 23. At her sentencing hearing, Judge L.D. Egnor suspended a one- to five-year prison sentence in favor of five years of probation.
ohfortheloveofdog:bingoparaphernalia:wooliebear:
Someone posted this quote earlier in the week. I keep waiting to hear more about it—someone at least try to explain but I guess I’ve missed it or it is indeed being ignored. It’s not the abortion issue I have a problem with but this quote is incredible, even more so as no one’s reporting about it.
via UK Telegraph:
The mainstream media have been incredibly slow to pick up on a creepy comment by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a New York Times interview published today but flagged last week. In it, Ginsburg talks about Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalised abortion:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
What? You can find the full context of the remark here, in the Times interview, but it doesn’t settle matters. And the (pro-choice) media haven’t exactly jumped on the story. Bloggers are incredulous. This is what Creative Minority Rreport had to say yesterday:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about using abortion as population control raised a lot of eyebrows in the blogosphere. Over 9,236 to be precise, according to Google blog search.
Huge sites too like Hot Air featured the story prominently. Even Drudge ran with the story yesterday.
But as of this morning the mainstream media have completely ignored the story about one of the most powerful people in the country essentially endorsing eugenics on populations “we don’t want to have too many of”.
What the heck is going on here? What are we to make of the media’s complete silence on this issue? They don’t see a little eugenics between friends as a big deal? They thought it was taken out of context?
As the large metropolitan newspapers die, they’re wondering why. This is why.
Fair point. You might think the New York Times might want to trumpet its exclusive. But the mindset of that pompous, prickly, boring, self-regarding publication is so overwhelmingly liberal that it didn’t even realise it had a story on its hands.
Honestly, the Telegraph is a stultifyingly conservative paper and I think the journalist is wilfully misreading the quote. She says that was her perception - she uses that exact word - of the mood at the time. She does not say it was her view or that she endorses that “concern”. She’s explaining why she assumed it would go on Medicaid.
I’ll admit that my knowledge of RBG and her rulings is far from comprehensive. It’s not my country. But perhaps the reason the NYT didn’t “trumpet its exclusive” is because there was no story? Because none of her many rulings display any evidence of a belief in eugenics?
That’s my reading of it, anyway. But I’d love to hear from more informed people.
I read it the same way, Bingo. I mean, just the other day, that racist Nixon quote surfaced - “There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white. Or a rape.” Attitudes like Nixon’s are what RBG was referring to. She was not giving HER OWN opinion on eugenics.
That is also how I read it. However, I would like to point out we had another person make some big eugenics-y statements this week—an anchor on Fox & Friends, no less—and the media didn’t pick up on that, either. So…who knows? Maybe they didn’t pick it up because there is no story, or maybe they didn’t pick it up because nobody wants to touch the topic of pro-eugenics ideology in America with a 10 foot pole.
The organization pays women who are drug addicts or alcoholics a one time amount of $300 to get permanent birth control. [viaI was hoping this was going to be about C.R.A.C.K. but I guess we are still pushing forward on this great and totally non racist/misogynist/classist/otherwise discriminatory plan.
Also, Plan B is ‘the abortion pill’ but sterilization is just ‘permanent birth control’? Nice word choice.
I want to say a couple of things as a disclaimer. First, I strongly disagree with any policy or program that pays certain groups of women to be sterilized, particularly those who are in a vulnerable place and might use funds given to them for things that only further hurt them. Second, I strongly disagree with any policy or program whose only concern is preventing pregnancy, not in helping the women who could become pregnant. Treating women like they are no more than their reproductive organs is offensive and degrading and dehumanizing, period.
I think that if such organizations are really interested in helping women and their children, the organizations should do two things: 1) provide free temporary birth control, such as the pill or the shot, to women who request it, and 2) help these women (and their children) receive treatment, counseling, and a safe environment and support group in which rehabilitation can take place.
However, on this comment:
No one thinks that taking drugs or drinking to excess during pregnancy is a good idea — though it is worth repeated reminding that the crack baby myth is just that, a myth.It’s worth noting that children born to addicted parents (that includes both) not only run the risk of higher birth defects (other illegal—and legal—drugs are associated with birth defects), but also get to look forward to a life of coming second to their parents’ addiction. These children are vulnerable to exploitation, multiple kinds of abuse, neglect, and even worse things that I do not even want to talk about here. I’ve seen it firsthand, and it is incredibly tragic to watch what addiction does not only to the people who are addicted, but also to their children who often end up becoming addicts themselves. And while I don’t think enforced sterilization is ever a solution, I don’t want to underplay how bleak a child’s chances are when they are born to an addicted mother and/or father for the sake of making my own argument about reproductive choice look better.Really, though, the important thing is that enforced sterilization, apart from being beyond wrong, isn’t going to solve the problem of addiction’s negative effects on adults or children. The focus needs to be on providing treatment, counseling, support, and safety…factors which often keep addicts in a cycle of addiction, and keeps their children there with them.
North Carolina recalled a regrettable side of its history on Monday by unveiling a roadside marker remembering poor people, mental patients and prisoners who were sterilized against their will by state officials. The cast aluminum sign in downtown Raleigh provides a permanent remembrance of the program intended to keep thousands of people considered mentally disabled or otherwise genetically inferior from having children.
More than 7,600 people were sterilized by ”choice or coercion” under the state’s so-called eugenics program between 1933 and 1973, according to the marker’s text. North Carolina’s program targeted the poor and people living in prisons and state institutions, among others. While officials obtained written consent from patients or their guardians, many didn’t know what they were signing and were essentially coerced, state historians said.
Two of the biggest names in the City of London had previously undisclosed links to slavery in the British colonies, documents seen by the Financial Times have revealed.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the banking family’s 19th-century patriarch, and James William Freshfield, founder of Freshfields, the top City law firm, benefited financially from slavery, records from the National Archives show, even though both have often been portrayed as opponents of slavery.
SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
Three Polish doctors and six nurses are facing criminal prosecution after a number of homeless people died following medical trials for a vaccine to the H5N1 bird-flu virus.
This is an older article but is a response to the ridiculous YouTube video going around about semis, silos and Citigroup payoffs. Emphasis mine.
A new strain of ‘super’ C. difficile has been linked to the deaths of 13 patients and another 17 are being treated for the infection as doctors battle to control an outbreak at Eastbourne District Hospital.
COPENHAGEN — A scientist known for his aggressive stance on climate policy made an apocalyptic prediction on Thursay.
A handful of biotech companies are racing to market a new generation of tests for Down syndrome, a development that promises a safer way to spot the most common genetic cause of mental retardation early in pregnancy even as it weaves a thicket of moral, medical, political and regulatory concerns.
Nancy Pelosi: Birth Control Will Stimulate the Economy (via LadyCop212)
Total: 1 of 1 Pages
